CHENNAI : Are employees of quasi-government organisations and banks, including RBI, employees of government? No, a division bench of the Madras High Court has held.The question was raised in the High Court and while a single judge held in the positive, a bench of two judges finally held in the negative.The TNPSC issued a notification on November 9, 2016 to fill up vacant posts falling under Group-I services. E Manojkumar, working in RBI, applied for the same. Against the column - Are you an employee of governmnent?, Manoj quoted in the negative.
Holding that he had suppressed the vital information, the PSC rejected his candidature. He moved the HC and following an interim direction, the commission allowed him to write the exam and he was provisionally selected to the post of DSP. However, while passing final orders a fortnight ago, the single judge had held that Manoj, being an employee of RBI, falls under government employee category and suppression of this fact will vitiate his candidature. The commission denied him the job. Hence, the present appeal from Manoj.
The appellant suffered disqualification due to the mistake committed by the outsourcing agency entrusted with the work of preparing application form as the agency omitted to include other services along with the government one in tune with clause 15(g) , a division bench of Justices KK Sasidharan and PD Audikesavalu said on April 10. Following a direction from judges, PSC Under Secretary appeared before the judge on April 4 and conducted a live demonstration. When the judges directed him to fill up the column in dispute - Are you a government employee?, the secretary typed ‘RBI employee’. Nothing came thereafter. The formation of the online questionnaire is in such a way that this question is a mandatory without answering which, the candidate cannot proceed.
He also told the judges that there is provision only to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. To a question as to who did mistake of non-inclusion of other services as indicated in clause 15(g) in the form, the Under Secretary without admitting it as a mistake, informed the judges that it was designed by a service provider Satvat Infosol (Pvt.) Ltd. So, the lacuna lies on the part of the outsourcing agency.
The fact that some other candidates declared the employment in RBI and banks as government service in the application form, would not be an answer to the question as to whether such employees are government employees. In case the employment under government service column is answered as “yes”, the next question “which department” would be asked.
This makes it very clear that the intention in the form was only to give a declaration relating to government employment and not other services, as indicated in clause 15(g). Manoj has not taken any undue advantage by not declaring his employment in RBI. “He failed to respond to the question with an answer “yes” only on account of his clear understanding, which according to us is right, that the service under the RBI is not actually a government service, the judges said and held that the appellant very correctly indicated that he is not a government employee.
He could not be held responsible for the preparation of an incorrect questionnaire by TNPSC. “We are therefore, of the view that the appellant must succeed,” the bench said, set aside the March 26 last rejection order and allowed the appeal. The bench directed the public service commission to forward the name of the appellant to the government for further action to give him an order of appointment, within a week.